I'm pretty much sure you're meaning to say, "@holydarkness did not keeps a record of his merits and I did that. Lol", because I did not, though I do hope that I did know about this thread long before this, I really wanted to keep my record of my merit when it showed "666"... simply for fun purpose, not that I am in love with... Baphomet. Thank you for recording this for me.

Archived website

---

Let's see, first, about the project, you're a Russian, living in Australia, concerned about United States Dollar? And to whom does this project addressed to? Second, about the team, you and you alone is the one controlling and building this project... which technically you just buy gold from every earned tax when someone buy your token, there's no expert on this, no financial counselor or trading advisor with hundred years of knowledge combined, just someone with psychology background --not that I have anything against Psychologist--, a mentor, and *check note* a live coach specialized on meditation that you've spent 10 years investigating that works really great on HR during Covid19?

I'll be blunt, how does this translate to crypto investing and gold trading?

The link of Instagram on your website doesn't even work, I need to manually search you [I kept a screenshot of it and didn't share it here, respecting your privacy, though you've stated that you're doxxed and giving a --inactive-- link to your Instagram, which imply you're ready to share it] and found nothing that could help this case.

Please tell me this is a joke and there's something more behind this? That you have something worth selling? Or at least, something that encourages people that your project is... decent and worth investing?

It is a bit rusty and collecting dust at the back of my mind, but there was a case escalated to an ADR in the past --I couldn't recall which ADR and what case against which platform-- where the mediator agreed that the same IP address doesn't necessarily proof a strong evidence of multi acc. On that case, though, it is not due to utilizing VPN, the user used mobile data which IP address is dynamic, changing every time they turned their mobile data on and off, so at one point a similarity of IP between two different person in their country bound to happen.


The duration of the proceedings are completely depends on how quick each other respond to the queries asked by the mediator and the time needed by the mediator on analyzing the evidences provided. So, in a way, it depends on all of the parties and all the factors involved.

Though it is a good way to tread through this forum, by putting people to your ignore list so they doesn't bother you anymore, it is a rather incorrect way to use trust list. Trust and distrust [~someone] are meant to express your opinion about how accurate someone's judgement is, it should be based on the records of the feedback they leave on other users, not how trustworthy they are on dealing with funds. The trustworthiness of funds are belong to the feedback [positive, neutral, and negative feedback].

Thank you for your very prompt reply and swift action addressing this issue once it came to your awareness. If I may add and be blunt, I have to agree with khaled 0111 and JeromeTash, one thing that bugged my mind when I first read OP's screenshot was that your customer service department could have been nicer to their... well, customers. Granted, we only saw snippets of it, so we don't know the full context and the flows of their discussion, but this whole situation can be at least minimalized if the customer service handled it a bit nicer.

Moving up, I understand that the situation is an interdepartmental miscommunication? Your security team missed the reply from the provider and your customer service department didn't escalate OP's case to the security team? I believe Rollbit can learn a thing or two from this issue.

That said, for OP, if you can confirm that you've received the withdrawal --as well as the bonus-- and don't have more things to add, it'll be nice if you can edit the thread title and marked it as solved and lock the topic. The button for locking this thread is at the bottom left of the page, while you can mark it as solved simply by adding "solved" or the likes on the title through editing your first post.

I understand correctly from this image that you did another withdrawal after the pending one, amounted $101, and it went through, while the $4,000 isn't? And all that you play is baccarat? If I may give it a guess, maybe your multiple withdrawal in a day --and quite significant amount too-- trigged their system and they're sorting this out. 7 days+ before today will place the withdrawal on 19th, the same day with your other two withdrawals. But this is a lot of assumption from me, and it'll be better to hear from rollbit themselves.

I am notifying Rollbit Razer about this, but it might take him some time to notice my PM. Please update us if there's any development from your side while we're waiting for Razer.

OP, can you please specify the purpose of this thread? And give proper evidences while you're at it. The nature of the project, Asan Vers, itself aside, the accusations you raised against the bounty manager for this case is rather baseless. They're paying, and this evidence below,


I am not sure how it contributes to the case, or is there a way that ties the username hdskbsk7837 to cryptoworlddev and their management?

Unless what you're raising is a thread about how the bounty management is supporting and managing a questionable project?

The problem is, OP is not even on their bounty campaign, can't find their name on the spreadsheet, just like Buddyspa, they're just here on "friend's" behalf, so I am not even sure what's the point of this thread

Pretty much sure we're talking about "review" here and not "complaint". Looks the same, but it'll be an important point on the next part of my explanation.

Sure, you can write a negative review on AG, but they also facilitating an intermediary, an ADR is what they called, Alternative Dispute Resolution. And this is what currenty being suggested here.

Simplified, someone complained to their platform, they assigned a mediator and call the other party to give their defense and proofs, more or less like how it happened on this forum. However, one of the main difference is that due to their position of being one of the official body of ADR --and acknowledged worldwide by several entities too-- and facilitated by having their own platform, they can review evidences in a discreet manner. Having their own platform enables them to set a "post" as private. Means, critical info that casinos like FJ are reluctant to share on this forum due to the concern that every eyes can access and read it and use it for their own benefits, are protected and made available only for the involved parties on ADRs like AG. This allows casinos to share their evidences with less concern of security breach.

One thing that worth to mention though, the casino and the complainant --that's you--, as well as this forum, are in mutual agreement that the verdict made by the ADR shall be respected and seen as having a major weight.

For raising a complaint on AG, you can access it through: https://www.askgamblers.com/online-casinos/reviews/fortunejack-casino, just look for a "submit a complaint" button. Not sure if this one works universally or it is tailored differently to each case or visitor, but this one is the direct button accessed from my device

Suppose your case is not sport-related and you feel more confident with CasinoGuru, here's FJ on CG: https://casino.guru/FortuneJack-Casino-review#tab=js-tab-reputation

But they were paying, unless I am mistaken? Granted, I am not familiar with klaytn explorer, but picking a random address from their spreadsheet and run it out to the explorer shows that the said participant indeed received 510,000 ASAN. Though I am somewhat dubious about the project itself.

Assuming the best of my gender bias, either this is a questionable team details or his parents have a very good taste of humor. I run a search through each of their image and it came back with zero result, though.

Adding what khaled0111 said, FJ is on both CasinoGuru and AskGamblers.Though your case is on multi-acc, if your betting history is sports-related, CG will not intermediate it, so you should directly go to AG. The choice is yours.

If this is what the measurement of how likely a platform scam someone, the numbers of accusations and disputes raised against them on this forum, disregarding they are solved or not, then almost all of the platforms on this forum are doomed. Even platform as big as SB has their shares of scam accusations, be it the one they invalidate themselves through proofs, or the community that provide the evidences, or the ones that solved through mutual agreements. But, if we use your parameter to determine the likelihood of SB to scam, is it still applicable? Wouldn't that means SB also is "very likely to scam"? If any, I think the exact opposite is what happened. The bigger the platform is, the more accusations and disputes raised and will be raised against them, as more people will try to take advantage and cheats, or miscommunication and technical issues happen.

Instead, the measurement that worth its weight and should be taken into consideration is how the representative(s) address and solve each of the cases handed to them. Several big platforms here have their fair share of accusations, and they addressed it the best they can. I left tags at several points to couple of casinos due to their very poor way attending to the cases. Razer for instance, went AWOL with those cases mentioned above piling on top of each other, but then he returned, was it not a show of good faith that they take accusations seriously and give their best to protect their reputation?

Feel free to argue back, I am open for non-hostile discussion.

Unless there are other cases that I missed, then if I am not mistaken, all of it are kinda solved. This post of mine on other thread gave a brief summary, and that was a bit behind the latest update.

Up to this day, user from case number 1 was never be seen anymore, with last post on the thread made by themselves, at 30th of May, and their last online date was more than one week ago as per when this post is made. Not sure if the silence is because they escalated the case to the EU authorities like they said they will, they waited for a response, or something else happened. So, it's actually 50-50. One might argue the user left the case because they tried their luck of playing victim and lose, while other might argue their silence is because they're working in the background. So, taking assumption of the later, let's say it's open.

As for case number 2, Rollbit and the user finally took their case to the licensor. Though the case should be still in early phase and perhaps currently being reviewed by the licensor, given the verdict made by CEG is binding to the parties involved and final, it is as good as closed.

So, to summarize and reflect to the latest situation, accusations about Rollbit are as follows:
1. Rollbit - scam 5k - GDPR PROBLEM
2. Rollbit disables account and seizes funds (10.2k)! - pending for CEG's decision
3. Community Warning - Rollbit ⚠️
4. Rollbit hold funds and ignore in chat
5. scam warning rollbit.com banned my account
6. rollbit scam (255 USDT)

And of course, as you also noticed and well mentioned, this one is not Rollbit's case, and rather an impersonator.

Where are these plenty of complaints? At best, there's only one unsolved case against Rollbit, and that only applied if we assume OP of that thread is working in the background. Or are there other cases that I missed? I'd like to visit them myself if there's any.

I am not exactly fond of snipping posts, in concern of creating an impartial narrative instead of the whole message tried to be conveyed by an user, but the rest of the post is quite irrelevent and I want all of us to focus on this part, so... snipped.


Now, though your statement is correct to certain degree, that they've let you pass the KYC and thus that account is verified, that doesn't mean you're exempted from further analysis [as stated by FJ themselves]. And it doesn't necessarily proof that you did the KYC fair and square. Not that I am saying you faked it, but I've haunted this board way too long that I am well aware of malpractice in KYC verification. Ranging from buying credentials, to using someone else's ID, that I know people shouldn't just take statements as-is. This is not the first case I attended where someone passed KYC and later found trying to abuse the platform by faking credentials.

However, I'd also like to know the basis taken by FJ for this accusation. Lest it be baseless and wrongful. The forum are open and stand in neutral ground. FortuneJack, if you're still attending this thread and wouldn't mind to answer some follow-up questions, does all the other accounts suspected to be related to OP has also done their KYC? Do their photos or other details on the document bring a connection to OP? You don't have to divulge it here, just a simple yes or no would be much appreciated.

I barely ventured to the Lending section so I might be wrong, but IIRC, there are instances in the past where members with high  reputation --or even "moderate" ones like your example-- used their account as means of collateral, it's like saying, "my Hero rank speak for itself, I will repay the loan or anyone can bombard the account with negative trust." So yeah, unless my memory served me wrong --and there is a high probability of it, given I barely venture to the section-- "digital account" is a valid "collateral" for some.

I will have to beg to differ on the "never enough evidence to nail anyone" part, though your later part bear some weight of truth; "unless the suspect doesn't have what it takes to vindicate themselves", which can be read as, "unless the suspect can no longer defend themselves as being not guilty".

It is quite established throughout the forum that cases being raised here should be seen on case-by-case basis. And be it we applying the presumption of guilt or the presumption of innocence, both presumptions emphasize of piling evidences up to beyond rational doubt that someone did or did not do something that's being accused. The keyword, for this topic, is "piling evidences".

If we use your instances, sure separately, they are circumstantial. FatFork's writing style can be coincidental [as I've argued it myself], same address of John can be a transaction between colleagues, social media handles can be copied. But if they're piling on top of each other, it'll push the barrier of reasonal doubt. This is why Little Mouse and PP suggested to utilize neutral tag as a marker to remind ourselves about the account while we dig deeper before taking further steps based on the findings.

Okay, I think you might want to take some fresh air. We're all landing on a wrong footing here. No one accuses you, so far, to be the one violating the casino and cheated them. They are simply suggesting possible situation, it is not really necessary to be addressed with bolded words and eye-catching font size. We tried our best to see cases from several angles and consider every possibilities.

As for myself, I've said it on the opening sentence of my first post here, I just want to be sure that every ground is covered. I have never use FJ, but from your screenshot where there is a checkmark of your email (?) and phone number (?), I assume FJ also give a green checkmark for KYC, as other platform that I know will let you know which level of KYC you've already passed and which level is still there to be completed if asked or if you volunteered.

As you've informed their representative about the case here, let's give them some time to attend to this case. I'll send them a PM and informing them about this thread on Sunday in case there's no reply until Saturday [three days from today]. Meanwhile, let's wait for their explanation.

The working assumption here --with benefit of doubts, of course-- is that you passed KYC as you're sure as hell about it and probably there's a miscommunication between their compliance, security team, and probably other department due the VPN. One department got alerted about suspicious behaviour, not knowing that the account already passed a KYC and the flag is a false positive. But that's a lot of assumption. Let's just wait for their reply.

Just to make sure every ground is covered, does your profile reflected and showed you passed the KYC verification?

What I am venturing is, the possibility that their email informing you that your withdrawal has been released is due to their good will, as in they released it to you prior to them finished checking your credential, and later found some oddity on the data being submitted and checked. It might worth to mention that they did not say anything about the verified KYC ID on the email, only that your fund has been released. Had you get any chance to look at your profile after it and see that your account is indeed marked as verified and/or received a confirmation email regarding this?

Hhhhh... I actually don't think this is necessary and not really interested to give my time for this case anymore, but as servant of Steve the community, I decided against it and do a little dig, really little dig.

Here's the first thing that I found:



I say it's enough time for Snne to log out of her account and sign in with the new one. "That's circumstantial at best!" someone might argue, or "It's just coincidence!". So, ok, I dig deeper. Below is what Hakangulll said on their very first post


But let's see what Snne said about that account before,


As well as two screenshots for a nice cherry on top.


should I say... "oops.."? or, "aha!"? Hmm... instead, I'll say, "Ahaha, better luck next time, hakansnne"

Uhh... I am not sure. I think the best approach will be to use the complaint form and see if the final step, or somewhere in between brought you to the aforementioned email address and/or you got a confirmation email from the said email address after your submission. You can always write to the email address provided by Razer and mentioned you submitted a form few days ago if you never heard anything from CEG after few days.

After all, this is what CEG wrote on their guidelines and rules of complaint submission:



To be fair, they've stand by their opinion from day one and make it clear. It was me and the community that encouraged you to the "run around" to make sure you exhausted every possible solution, as per the licensor's notice,


So, I'll take the shares of blame for it if you feel pissed off by these delays.